Green Deal

Anne McIntosh: I am delighted to report that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently visiting the Pickering “slowing the flow” project at the request of North Yorkshire county council.
	Will my hon. Friend assure that the House that there will not be a knee-jerk reaction banning all wild animals in circuses until we have taken the best possible legal advice? Is it not a little hypocritical of Parliament to receive, in the House of Commons, performers from circuses that use wild animals, and then to reject those very performers?

Jonathan Reynolds: May we have a debate about this country’s ability to respond effectively in the event of a major terrorist incident? On Tuesday I called a debate in Westminster Hall about the future of Forensic Science Service, something the Leader of the House may remember me raising at previous business questions. MPs from all parts of the House who attended the debate raised many serious concerns about the Government’s plans to wind down the FSS, plans that I believe would leave the country without the capacity to deal effectively in the aftermath of a major terrorist incident and would weaken the fight against crime. The Government simply need to look again at the issue.

John Spellar: I should like to ask a further question regarding Baroness Warsi. Business before pleasure, however, and I must ask about the impact of compulsory water metering on gardeners—the water tax. Last Thursday, I asked the hapless Secretary of State for Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs why she was even considering compulsory water metering, and her reply completely avoided the subject. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week—the week, incidentally, of the Chelsea flower show—in which the Secretary of State can categorically rule out compulsory domestic water metering?

George Young: I would like to find time for such a debate, and perhaps the Back-bench Business Committee could provide it. One of the unforeseen consequences of trying to protect children by introducing CRB checks is that fewer people are then able to help children through voluntary organisations such as the scouts. We have to try to get the right balance that gives children the protection to which they are entitled but does not discourage volunteers such as my hon. Friend from playing an active part in their activities.

George Young: I will give my right hon. Friend who is replying to Monday’s debate on the police notice that the hon. Lady has raised this issue and see whether we can deal with it in the opening or closing speeches.

Philip Hollobone: Will Her Majesty’s Government table their amendments to the Armed Forces Bill in good time, and will the Leader of the House confirm that those amendments will enshrine the military covenant in law, as the Prime Minister wishes, and not simply beef up the report on the covenant, as the Ministry of Defence is seeking?

Philip Hammond: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the publication today of Sir Roy McNulty’s independent study into value for money in the rail industry, and to update the House about the west coast franchise process.
	Sir Roy’s report notes that UK rail has enjoyed a revival in recent years, with strong and resilient growth in overall passenger numbers and in passenger satisfaction, and huge improvements in reliability and safety. The Government want Britain’s railways to continue to prosper and have demonstrated by their actions their commitment to them. Despite the difficult fiscal climate, we have allocated funding to complete Crossrail and Thameslink, and to support the upgrade of the London underground. We have announced electrification on the great western main line and in north-west England. We have resumed the intercity express programme to improve reliability, comfort and journey times on the east coast and Great Western main lines. We have given the go-ahead to the Ordsall chord project in Manchester and the Swindon to Kemble redoubling. We have confirmed the purchase of more than 2,000 new rail vehicles for Thameslink, Crossrail and other franchises, and the cascading of 100s more. Last but not least, we have begun the High Speed 2 consultation process.
	But Sir Roy made another, less welcome, finding. Spending on the passenger railway has increased by 60% in real terms since 1996-97—that is more than £4 billion—and despite significant passenger growth, unit costs in 2009 were almost exactly the same in real terms as in 1996. Therefore, UK rail is now up to 40% more expensive per passenger mile than the railways of our European competitors. Allowing for unavoidable differences, Sir Roy estimates that UK rail costs are 20% to 30% higher than they should be, and that potential savings of between £740 million and £1.05 billion a year could be found by 2018-19 without any reduction in services. Those savings, added to the savings that Network Rail is committed to achieving up to 2014 and the savings that Sir Roy expects the regulator to seek from Network Rail over the period to 2019, should largely close the efficiency gap.
	Many of Sir Roy’s recommendations are directed to the industry, and the open and inclusive process that the study adopted means that some of them are already being implemented. The industry has come together to form a rail delivery group to provide the leadership that Sir Roy noted was lacking in the past. Network Rail has announced its plans to devolve significant autonomy to route managers across the network, starting with the Wessex and Scottish regions.
	Sir Roy’s remit, which was set by my predecessor and the Office of Rail Regulation which co-sponsored the study, was narrowly focused on the cost base of the railway. He makes a large number of recommendations. Over the coming months, the Government will consider the recommendations that are directed to them, and they will deliver their response later this year. Many of the recommendations on franchises reflect the changes that the Government have already announced. In addition, I can confirm today that my Department will accept
	Sir Roy’s recommendation that it should conduct a full review of fares policy, which will include addressing anomalies in the current system and the potential for much greater use of smart technology. In parallel, the Government are developing a wider rail strategy to ensure that we have an affordable, sustainable, safe and high-quality railway that delivers a better deal to taxpayers and fare payers. It will set out clearly the roles of central and local government, train operators and Network Rail in securing the future of the railway.
	This is urgent and vital work. Let us be in no doubt but that the excessive cost base that Sir Roy has identified is the reason that UK rail fares are the highest in Europe by some margin, even though our levels of taxpayer subsidy are also among the highest in Europe. Let us be clear about the potential prize. The successful delivery of cost reductions over the next few years on the scale set out by McNulty would enable us to reduce levels of taxpayer subsidy and, at the same time, put the era of inflation-busting fare increases behind us.
	To achieve the challenging targets for cost reduction and industry-wide efficiency that Sir Roy has identified, all players in the industry will have to work together. The train operators, Network Rail, rolling stock companies, unions and the Government cannot avoid playing their part if we are to deliver a sustainable and affordable railway for the future.
	Sir Roy makes it clear that the Department needs to step back from excessively detailed specification of train services and the micro-management of rail operations. I recognise that that will represent a major culture change, but it is one that I am determined to deliver. I would like to place on record my thanks to Sir Roy McNulty and his team for the excellent work they have done, and to welcome Sir Roy’s commitment to working with the industry on an ongoing basis.
	I also wish to announce to the House the publication of the draft invitation to tender and stakeholder briefing document for the intercity west coast franchise, which lays out the train service specification that I am minded to procure for that route. As I have said, the Government have already adopted Sir Roy’s recommendation that franchise specifications should become less prescriptive. The proposed train service specification for intercity west coast represents a relaxation of the rigid timetable specifications of the past, while retaining obligations that protect the key elements of service such as principal first and last train services and minimum numbers of station stops per week and per day. That marks a significant shift from the micro-management under the current system that has prevented operators from maximising capacity and reacting to the changing demands of their passengers.
	Among other proposed changes, we intend to replace the current cap and collar revenue-sharing system that has driven perverse behaviour by train operators with a gross domestic product-based risk-sharing arrangement and a profit-sharing mechanism that will ensure that the taxpayer benefits from any unexpected profits over the term of the franchise.
	Because the relaxation of the full prescription of train services in line with Sir Roy’s recommendations was not signalled in the consultation document that we published on 19 January, I have decided that it is right
	and proper to consult on the proposals again, starting today and ending on 17 August. As a consequence of that decision, I can inform the House that the new franchise for the intercity west coast will now be awarded in August 2012, after a competitive process involving the four shortlisted train operators, and will commence operations on 9 December 2012. In making that decision, I have deliberately avoided a change of franchise immediately ahead of or during the Olympic period. I have also decided to take advantage of the short delay to complete the integration of the 106 new Pendolino carriages into the fleet prior to the commencement of the new franchise. The Department will seek to agree acceptable terms with the existing franchisee for a contract extension to 9 December 2012, but Directly Operated Railways Ltd, the Government-owned company that runs East Coast, will be ready to operate the franchise between April and December 2012 if necessary.
	Copies of the rail value-for-money study and the draft invitation to tender for the west coast main line have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and are available on the Department’s website. Our expectation is that future passenger franchises on UK rail will allow operators greater flexibility to meet passenger demand and pursue innovation, while protecting the key elements of service for passengers.
	Longer franchises and a changed relationship with Network Rail will have a positive impact on the behaviour of train operators and their appetite for investment and risk taking. However, I want to send a clear message that the new culture of co-operation in the rail industry, and the focus on cost reduction, is here to stay and is mandatory, not optional. I can announce today that as a matter of policy for all future franchise competitions, a significant part of the assessment of bidders’ capability at the pre-qualification stage will be evidence of success in collaborative working and driving down costs.
	The facts are clear: our railway costs too much, and in consequence fares are rising faster than inflation and taxpayer subsidy has reached unsustainable levels. To secure the future of the railway, we now have to tackle that problem after a decade of ignoring it and get costs into line with those of our European comparators, bringing relief to taxpayers and the prospect of an end to the era of above-inflation fare increases to passengers. I commend this statement to the House.

Maria Eagle: I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement. May I place on record the thanks of Labour Members to Sir Roy McNulty for the detailed and thorough work that he has carried out? As the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, that work began under the previous Government.
	I have said before that we would look seriously at the conclusions of the value-for-money review and support any sensible proposals to take costs out of the industry. I promise again today that we will study the details of Sir Roy’s report, and that it will inform our own transport policy review.
	I agree with the Secretary of State that we should reduce the public subsidy to the rail industry, and we need to be clear about why much of that subsidy exists if we are to address it effectively. It is partly the result of the enormous structural fragmentation within the industry, and let us be clear that that fragmentation is the legacy
	of the botched privatisation carried out in the dying days of the last Conservative Government. The Secretary of State should have apologised today for the shambles of that privatisation and the staggering sums of money wasted as a result. Unlike him, I take our share of the responsibility for being too timid about addressing that fragmentation during our time in government.
	Closer working between train operators and Network Rail makes sense, and I support the internal reorganisation that is going on at Network Rail and many of the proposals that have been made to ensure that costs are removed through greater partnership. I am pleased that the Secretary of State appears to have stepped back from his earlier plans for the wholesale breaking up of our rail infrastructure, which would have been a costly mistake and added yet more fragmentation to the industry. Can he confirm that he does not intend to proceed with an experiment of handing track over to train operating companies within any of the franchise areas? Previously there has been briefing that the East Anglia franchise would be used for that experiment. Can he reassure the House that that is no longer the plan?
	I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision to establish a proper review of fares. Despite the efforts that we made, the current system is too complex and leaves passengers frustrated. However, does he understand why passengers will have very little faith that he does not intend to impose yet further hikes in ticket prices? At a time when families are feeling the squeeze on their household budgets, he has imposed fare rises of more than 30% over the next three years. I believe he was wrong to give back to train companies the right to average out the cap across their fares, rather than apply it to each fare individually as we insisted when we were in government. He was also wrong to increase the cap on regulated fares from 1% to 3% above inflation.
	In opposition, current the Minister of State said that fare rises of such a level would
	“price people off the railways”,
	and the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), promised below-inflation fare rises—more broken promises from the two Government parties. Will the Secretary of State reject proposals to give the train operating companies greater freedom to set the level of fares? Will he listen to his own consumer watchdog, Passenger Focus, which has today described the suggestion of reducing regulation on off-peak tickets as a “leap in the dark”? Does he share its concern, as I do, that if the plans go ahead, we might end up with affordable, flexible travel for longer journeys being confined to a brief window in the middle of the day?
	Will the Secretary of State also reject the suggestion to remove any role for politicians in the setting of fares, which would effectively remove any public accountability for fares through the ballot box? The link between the fare box and the ballot box should not be broken.
	May I urge the right hon. Gentleman to approach reform to staffing levels and pay and conditions within the rail industry in a spirit of partnership, not confrontation? That is something that we have not seen in the language and tone of briefings by his Department in recent days. I urge the trade unions to work with the Government as they look to carry out reforms within the industry, but will he ensure that he includes those who represent staff on the high-level group that he is establishing to take
	forward these reforms? As he considers staffing, will he understand the value that passengers place on staffed trains and open ticket offices, and the fact that women in particular feel safer in properly staffed stations, particularly late at night?
	We have heard today the extent to which the right hon. Gentleman’s policy on rail franchising has descended into chaos and confusion, with his decision to delay the awarding of the west coast franchise. Can he confirm that First Group is to hand back its Great Western franchise three years ahead of schedule? Is the reason that it has given for that decision, as reported in the press, that it has calculated that it will make losses in the final years of its franchise period? Does he agree that that is unacceptable?
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that there is a possibility that the east coast main line, the west coast main line and the Great Western franchises will all be run by the Government while he decides what his franchising policy is? Does that not make a mockery of the whole franchising system?
	Does the Secretary of State understand why commuters in East Anglia are dismayed at the cost and chaos of his decision to award a contract for less than two years, risking three owners in as many years, with only the companies that supply the paint to redo the liveries benefiting? Are not the future of franchising, the massive public subsidies that go to the private train operating companies, and the vast sums that leave the industry in profits the big missing pieces of the work of looking at costs in the industry?
	I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision to replace the current cap and collar revenue-sharing system, but does he agree that we will not get the costs of the industry under control until we look seriously at its structure and the future of franchising? The public wants a simplified industry—one in which the driving force is less maximising profit and squeezing every last penny out of the fare payer and the taxpayer, and more the delivery of a world-class service. That is why I have committed Labour’s policy review to look at alternative models for the future of the rail industry, including not-for-profit models. I urge him to do the same.
	Finally, the right hon. Gentleman’s statement was not the only announcement to be widely spun and briefed to the media in advance of his coming before the House. Several newspapers are reporting that he has abandoned his plans to close more than half the UK’s coastguard stations, yet the Opposition understand that far from abandoning the plans, he has simply put them on hold. Those plans were never agreed by Ministers in the previous Government, and I would not have approved them. Will he now take this opportunity to end the huge uncertainty facing coastguard stations and agree to abandon those reckless proposals?

Philip Hammond: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for that very helpful guidance.
	I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s comments about Sir Roy, who was of course appointed by my predecessor. I very much hope that we can take forward the rail reform agenda with a degree of cross-party consensus, which would be very helpful—realistically, it is asking a great deal to expect that we will agree on everything.
	The hon. Lady blames “structural fragmentation” for the high cost of our railway. She obviously has not yet had a chance to read the full report, but when she does so she will see that Sir Roy identifies many causes. However, she seems to be displaying the famous Labour disease of collective amnesia. She might recall the inconvenient facts that her Government created Network Rail a decade ago, and that her Government spent 13 years in power doing nothing at all about the structural fragmentation of which she now complains.
	The way forward that passengers and taxpayers would expect us to take for our railway is one of evolution rather than revolution, although that evolution must be rapid. I have taken a conscious decision, which I conveyed to Sir Roy, that I would like to see how far we can go within the existing railways legislative framework rather than spark an ultimately unproductive and, for passengers, entirely unhelpful political debate over the next couple of years on major railway legislation. The idea of Sir Roy McNulty’s agenda is to take forward significant reductions in costs in the railway within the existing legislative framework.
	The hon. Lady asked about track-train integration. As she will know, Sir Roy has suggested that we pilot closer integration between train operators and the devolved Network Rail infrastructure operations on the different routes and regions. Sir Roy suggested that the railway is not homogeneous, and that we should go forward at different paces on different sections of our railway. I agree with that general principle. We will look very carefully at Sir Roy’s specific proposals and suggestions on track-train integration, and incorporate a response into the wider rail reform proposals with which I intend to return to the House before the end of this year.
	The hon. Lady welcomed the fares review, and I am grateful to her for that. She asked whether the review is a cover or code word for increases in prices, but I say this to her: the Government want an end to the era in which fares rise faster than inflation, but we can do that only by delivering Sir Roy’s savings and by getting the costs of our railway back under control. That prize is within our grasp if we progress Sir Roy’s agenda. To reassure her, I have no intention of ending the system of regulated fares. That is not suggested by Sir Roy, and know not where she got the idea that I was in favour of it.
	The hon. Lady asked me to try to take a collaborative approach with the unions on labour productivity. I would be delighted to do so if an opportunity arises. I was slightly heartened by what I heard Bob Crow say on the radio this morning, although I may have heard only a part of the total interview. He said he was willing to look at proposals for more efficient working practices, which is at least better than his saying that he is not willing to look at such proposals. We must be clear that all players in the industry must change if we are to harvest those savings. The prize for the unions is also big. The railway is a growing industry—it is not in decline, as it was before privatisation, but growing rapidly
	and robustly—and huge increases in passenger numbers are projected. If we can deal with the problems of the cost base, we could have a hugely successful business for the benefit of British fare payers and taxpayers.
	The hon. Lady has won me a small bet by referring to my strategy on west coast franchising as being in “chaos and confusion”, so I am grateful to her for that. In fact, I have today announced an example of open government. We could have progressed with the draft invitation to tender that I published today without further consultation, but I felt that because there has been a material change from the documents that we circulated at the time of the January consultation, it is right to consult again. That introduces a three-month delay, and I do not want the franchise changeover to come immediately before the Olympics, which necessarily means a delay until the latter part of next year, which gives us the opportunity to complete the integration of the Pendolino fleet. We have taken a set of careful and interlinked decisions on the timetable for that franchise, and I hope that, on reflection, she welcomes the approach that we have adopted.
	The hon. Lady asked about First Great Western. It is of course true that First Great Western has decided to exercise the break clause that exists in its franchise, which allows it to surrender it in 2013 rather than in 2016. However, before she adopts too strident a tone, she should remember who let that franchise with that break clause in it. First Group has exercised the rights that her Government gave it in that franchise. She might also reflect on the fact that her Government let the GNER franchise and NXEA franchise before she gets too strident about them as well.
	The hon. Lady mentioned profit in the railway. I do not consider “profit” to be a dirty word. I consider that proper incentives and profit-making companies delivering efficient public services can be effective ways of delivering for the taxpayer and the passenger. This Government will introduce a profit-sharing arrangement in new franchises, the like of which does not appear in the current crop of franchises, which her Government let, and the like of which would have prevented situations such as the one on the Trans-Pennine franchise, where profits of 30% on revenue are being earned. We will ensure that the taxpayer gets a fair share of any unanticipated profits that are earned over the lifetime of the franchise. I hope that we all have the same objective—the delivery of a world-class railway service that is affordable for taxpayers and for fare payers. However, to deliver that, we have to drive out cost-effectively and, after Members and others have heard what I have had to say and what the hon. Lady has had to say, it will be for them to decide who will most effectively be able to achieve that objective.

Robert Syms: Yes, and we could not buy that. As the Chairman of the Select Committee has said, where the BBC withdraws a service another organisation will fill that vacuum, perhaps with a less good service, and probably with a less accurate one.
	Looking back at the events in my lifetime, it is clear that the flow of information and the use of technology can change worldwide events. One factor in the overthrow of the Shah of Iran was the fact that he modernised his telephone system so that plugs could not be pulled out, which allowed the Ayatollah to phone through the digital system and give instructions to his followers. The flow of information from western television channels telling people in East Germany that they could get out to the west through a neighbouring country led to the great events that resulted in the Berlin wall being torn down. It is also clear from what is happening in parts of north Africa and the rest of the world now that information is a vitally important commodity.
	The investment over decades in the Reithian tradition of striving for truth is very important, and we should bear in mind the sums involved here. I think the figure for the Hindi service is £680,000, and that is very small in the grand scale of things. We therefore must pause to reflect, and it would be a good idea if thought was given to addressing the issue of the Department for International Development budget. Aid is one answer to the world’s problems, but good governance and truth is another. We can greatly improve the manner in which the developing and third world is governed by getting more truth and information into countries and getting much more openness, transparency and democracy. The World Service can, of course, play a role in that.
	I therefore hope the Government will listen. I hope they reflect on this excellent Select Committee report, and that we do not, as it were, throw the baby out with the bath water and for the sake of a small sum of money lose the ability to project truth, honesty and transparency to the world, which is so valued by people who live abroad and do not share our advantages.

Martin Horwood: The Liberal Democrats welcome the debate and strongly support the motion. The Select Committee Chairman set out very well the terms of the debate and the contrast between soft and hard power. Hard power in military terms is certainly often appropriate, as in the cases of Libya and Afghanistan, but it is an expression of British power overseas that is often fraught with military, political and financial difficulties. Even in the gentler realm of diplomacy, we are rightly reviewing our diplomatic presence around the world—and, it is to be hoped, expanding it in many cases in light of a changing world—while also having to pay attention to the financial context at home.
	Soft power and expressions such as “the BBC World Service” are extraordinarily cost-effective. They reach billions of people and are enormously positive with very few complications, including many of the negative complications of other expressions of British interest around the world. The World Service in particular has attracted extraordinary plaudits from the likes of Kofi Annan and even Nelson Mandela. It has been refreshing in recent months to see placards on the streets of Muslim countries calling not for death to Britain or
	anything like that but thanking the BBC. They are talking about the BBC World Service, of course. In that context, it is extraordinary that we are facing the prospect of cuts to the Arabic service in particular. So, it is right that Ministers should be reconsidering the matter.
	The current funding relationship is somewhat uncomfortable. The Select Committee is cautious about the eventual transfer of World Service funding to the BBC and rightly says that safeguards should be
	“put in place to prevent any risk of long-term erosion of the World Service’s funding and of Parliament’s right to oversee its work.”
	The intervention by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) was also well made. Provided that those safeguards can be put in place—the Select Committee suggested a formal concordat with the BBC Trust—there is one advantage to the transfer of funding, which is that it underlines the independence of the BBC World Service from political decisions about both funding and editorial content. That is an important reassurance for World Service listeners worldwide.
	In the meantime, we have something of a problem in the period leading up until 2014. I welcome the Committee’s call for funding arrangements to be re-examined. We are happy to support it and I am glad that the Government are accepting the motion. I appreciate, however, that this is not as easy as it first looks. I understand, like others, that Ministers have thought about this very carefully and are aware of the issues involved. I am certainly very grateful for the time that Ministers and their advisers from both DFID and the FCO have spent answering my questions on this subject, as well as those of my right hon. and hon. Friends in this Chamber and in another place.
	I particularly welcome the Secretary of State for International Development’s announcement about the prospect of a significant grant to the BBC World Service Trust. Many development issues can be addressed in World Service programming, from gender awareness, to global responsibilities for climate change, adaptation to it and how people can prepare for it, to health awareness, particularly about matters such as the HIV epidemic.
	There are limitations, however. It is right that DFID’s funding should be restricted to matters that qualify as overseas development assistance and not all broadcasting can come within that remit. It would set a bad precedent if DFID was asked to fund areas that did not qualify as ODA under OECD rules and we would not want that precedent to be set. Nor would we want World Service programming to be skewed completely in the direction of development programming. The provision of information and a British perspective on world events is very important in many countries. The Hindi and Mandarin services spring to mind and the priority in those cases is not development but our economic, diplomatic, political and cultural presence, which is vital.
	The BBC should have to examine its costs, its overheads and its back-up costs just like any other public spending. It is quite right that it should try to do that and if the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) is correct, there has clearly already been an iterative process between Ministers and the BBC on the exact nature and extent of these cuts and their impact on particular broadcast services. Even if that is true, following that iterative process we are still facing cuts in such vital services as
	Arabic, Hindi and Mandarin, so it is clear that we must reconsider the transitional arrangements between now and 2014. We should consider how we can protect those key services.
	In the great scheme of things, the amounts of money involved are not huge. As has been pointed out by the Select Committee, they are a relatively small proportion of the increases in DFID’s budget. Even within wider Government and FCO spending, we are not talking about large amounts of money. As I said at the outset, the cost-effectiveness of the programming and influence of the World Service and the respect that it earns this country are of almost incalculable value. I urge Ministers enthusiastically to accept the motion and do whatever they can to protect this jewel in the crown of British broadcasting.

Wayne David: We have had a short but truly excellent debate this afternoon. The hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) began the debate by speaking powerfully as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. He reinforced and explained extremely well the main conclusions of his Committee’s report, which is first rate. He summarised the main concerns that Members have expressed today and in previous discussions and interventions in the House. He has put a significant question mark over the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s financial calculations regarding the World Service.
	We then heard a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), who reiterated what the Chair of his Committee had said and stressed the fact that the World Service is seen as a jewel in the crown. We heard from the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms), who gave a number of practical examples of how the dissemination of objective information can help the development of democracy in a truly practical way. Similarly, we heard from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who reinforced the case put by other Members and made it clear where his party stood on the matter. Finally, we heard from the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who spoke with great insight about the importance of the World Service and referred to his experience in east Africa. It is only by understanding such concrete examples that we can really appreciate the value of the World Service.
	As well as expressing concern about the short wave BBC China Mandarin service, which broadcasts in a country where democracy is in short supply, I would like to focus briefly on two areas. First, it was initially announced that the BBC Hindi short wave service was to close in March 2011. However, the Government announced a partial reprieve in March with the continuation of an hour of current affairs broadcasting, pending commercial funding being found. This concerns me greatly. We all know that India has enormous economic potential, and the Government are rightly strengthening their bilateral relations with that country. It is all the more worrying, I suggest, that the sword of Damocles still hangs over the BBC Hindi short wave service. That should not be the case.
	The other huge concern I have relates to BBC Arabic. The events in north Africa and the middle east over the past few months have been truly momentous, and the process of change continues apace. It is therefore extremely worrying that the World Service has announced 60 job losses in its Arabic service. Surely the World Service should, if anything, be providing more resources to BBC Arabic, rather than less. I fully appreciate that many of the plans were drawn up before the incredible events of the past few months, but that is all the more reason for the Government to accept that reality and revisit the whole programme.
	In addition to these concerns, I would like to give an example of how the World Service impacts in a positive way on one country in particular. Earlier this week I was in Serbia. I was there with the Labour party and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. I undertook the political reconnaissance as part of an ongoing assessment of how democratic debate in that country can best be assisted. Serbia has made good progress over the past few years, but there is still much to be done. One of the crucial elements that has helped Serbia’s march to democracy, as a number of people made very clear to me, is the BBC World Service. It is no exaggeration to say that there is not a single democrat in Serbia who does not acknowledge the important role of the World Service. Equally, there is universal disappointment that Serbia is one of those countries that will lose World Service courage.
	One of the people I spoke to earlier this week was Sasa Mirkovic, the managing director of the radio and television company B92. He explained to me how the
	World Service has been a source of objective information, inspiration and hope to a whole generation in Serbia, and he deeply regretted the end of its broadcasting in Serbia, because, as he said to me, democracy in that country needs to be encouraged and continually reinforced.
	What is true of Serbia is true of many other parts of the world. The Opposition have very real concerns about the Government’s plans, and this afternoon Members have underlined the conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Committee’s excellent report. As well as the loss of crucial influence in key countries and regions throughout the world, the cuts will mean a diminution in Britain’s global influence. There will be a drop of 30 million people—from 180 million to 150 million—in the service’s global audience, and such a cut is quite unprecedented.
	There has to be an ongoing assessment of how finite resources can be best used, but such a reduction in grant-in-aid will greatly undermine the service and send a negative message around the globe—that Britain no longer sees high quality, objective and honest reporting as being particularly important. I hope that nothing is further from the truth.
	In the order of things, the BBC World Service is a mere drop in the ocean of public expenditure, but the money invested in the service is a sound investment—an investment that effectively promotes the universal values of which all Members are justifiably proud.
	I therefore ask the Government to think again, to take heed of what our friends throughout the world are saying to us, to recognise the worth of the World Service and not to engage in this false economy. I urge the Government to accept the motion before us, and, if they are inclined to accept it and agree to a review, I suggest that that review takes place as quickly as possible, and as a matter of urgency.

John Woodcock: I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on securing the debate and, of course, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), my Cumbrian neighbour, on leading it. He made a superb speech that touched incredibly well on many issues, particularly the need for a narrative and action on growth and the
	means to deliver it. There is always space for him on the Opposition Benches—quite a lot of space at the moment. He made the point that, “Of course we can spend money on X; look at how much we spend everyday on all these terrible wars”, which would chime very well with what some of my colleagues say; I was surprised to hear it from the Conservative Benches. I have worked with him on the need for faster broadband in Cumbria and will say more about that in a moment.
	It was good to follow the very well-made speech by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw). He said that nothing had been done over the past 13 years, and obviously I wish that in many areas we had gone faster. We now need to accelerate progress, but I do not remember being able in 1997 to sit in my room in Barrow—it is upstairs, admittedly—and flick through the 3G and wi-fi on my iPhone, so things have really improved. The regulatory framework put in place by the previous Government has been part of that, and the Minister has past experience of that. We should recognise that much has been done and that much more needs to be done.
	I should also say that I have written to Mr Speaker to ask to be excused from the winding-up speeches, as I am travelling to Scotland this evening for the funeral of David Cairns tomorrow. I hope that the Minister and other Members will excuse me.
	In the brief time available, I want to stress the economic importance of faster broadband networks in my constituency and across Cumbria. We of course want faster roll-out and see the urgency of that. I am happy to support the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, but we need to do this as fast as possible, and 2015 is still a significant way off. There is a need for greater action from the Government and from broadband providers, which we must not forget.
	I want to mention the example of Kates Skates in Barrow. Barrow is an urban areas, but urban areas within larger rural counties experience these problems cheek by jowl with people and companies that would more readily be associated with rural surroundings, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood noted. In 1996, Chris and Catherine Palmen thought that it would be a good idea to construct an indoor ice rink in the centre of Barrow. It actually turned out to be a bad idea, which did not get anywhere at all, but their story is testament to our extraordinary entrepreneurial spirit in Furness and throughout the country, because unperturbed by the mammoth flop of that business the Palmens decided to go into retail.
	Kates Skates started with ice skates and quickly expanded to the point now where it has possibly Europe’s largest range of skates, skateboards, snowboards—if any Government Members are skater boys or girls, they can help me out—and scooters. The company has a really tremendous range, ships upwards of 250 orders a day from its small store and employs about 20 people, with 5% of its orders coming from the shop in Furness and 95% from online orders from the rest of the UK and, increasingly, Europe.
	That is exactly the kind of business that we need to promote to ensure that such concerns can prosper anywhere in the UK, but the Palmens tell me of their enormous frustration at their slow broadband connection, which really hampers their internal processes. They spent quite a lot of money developing 3D images of their products,
	but having reached that stage they realised that they could not put them online because their broadband link was too slow to sustain them. We have to be able to do something about that. Companies such as Kates Skates say, “We started up in the area where we are from, we want to stay there, we love the quality of life in Barrow and the access to elsewhere in the Lake district, and we don’t want to move to a larger city.” The Palmens are in an increasingly difficult situation, however, because of the slow broadband with which they are forced to contend.
	Many people have raised this problem with me, and I am sure that we will hear further examples throughout the day. CGP Books in Broughton, a great company producing textbooks, has itself shelled out for a faster link, but the increasing costs are obviously affecting its bottom line. Furness Internet, which provides services throughout the area, has frustrated customers who want to do more but cannot because of a single point of failure: the data cable that it purchased at great expense. The company says that the cable is relatively reliable at the moment, but if it goes down, all the customers of Furness Internet will be up the swanny, and that is really worrying for people who are looking to locate to the area. I spoke to the head of Cumbria’s chamber of commerce today, who stressed how absolutely essential it is for us to sort out the problem if we are to drive wider progress in the county.

Duncan Hames: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the reduction in carbon reductions that results from a decent internet infrastructure. Earlier in the week, he may have heard transport Ministers say in the House that one of the few reasons we are able to cope with the present capacity constraints on our transport infrastructure is the fact that more people work from home, thus reducing their dependence on travel. The internet enables them to do their work at home rather than incurring huge amounts of time, cost and indeed pollution by travelling.

Nigel Evans: Order. To enable as many Members as possible to contribute, I am now reducing the time limit to five minutes.
	Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) on securing the debate. We represent two of the largest constituencies in England. Mine covers 900 square miles, and his is about twice as large, I think. As many Members have said, my hon. Friend is leading the way on this issue, and I would also like briefly to pay tribute to his office staff—to Louis Mosley and the other members of the team—who are assisting him in leading the way.
	Like my hon. Friend’s constituency, my constituency has become the test bed for one of the superfast broadband pilots, which is fantastic news. The procurement process began last week, and we hope that many major telecommunications companies will come forward and start bidding so that we can deliver on this project over the next couple of years. The aim is to address the major issue for north Yorkshire, which is the need to sort out, once and for all, the digital gap that is damaging businesses and communities throughout our county. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) mentioned, 30% of the county is classed as having low-speed broadband, which is having a massive effect on individuals, businesses and communities.
	Copying my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, my Yorkshire colleagues and I recently held a conference. Talking of copying, I advise anyone who is interested in this issue to copy all my hon. Friend’s initiatives, as he has done some great stuff. We copied his conference idea in north Yorkshire, and hundreds of people from all walks of life came along and talked about the problems they are facing.
	The biggest problem is an economic one. Unless we address that through market intervention, there will be a downward economic spiral in rural areas, because businesses will begin to move out and there will be no incentive for them to move back in again. The north Yorkshire pilot cannot come early enough, therefore.
	The issue is not just to do with businesses, however. As we have heard, there is general frustration in all walks of life: there is huge frustration about housing becoming less marketable because of “not spots” and low speeds, and about whole communities of people, and their schools and other organisations, getting fewer
	deals online. Apparently, people lose out by £500 of £600 a year if they cannot get online to take advantage of the internet shopping bargains.
	For all the Government have done for us on this issue, communities and villages must play their parts. As many Members have said, communities throughout England are coming together, and in Skipton and Ripon we have seen some great examples. In Darley, a beautiful village in Nidderdale, many people have come together and shown that there is demand, showing those who hope to invest in our procurement process that there is money to be made—Sue Welch and David Holland deserve mention. Across the Pennines, in Appletreewick, Adrian Precious did something similar. They got their communities together and showed that if we link the communities, that presents a real proposition for the private sector.
	The £500 million fund and the Government’s universal broadband commitment are grabbing the attention of my constituents and of North Yorkshire. Although I am very positive about the work the Government have done, there is a slight question mark over mobile provision. The forthcoming auction of the 800 MHz spectrum is equally key for our rural communities and if we consider the poor auction process for 3G and what happened then, we can see that there is a tremendous amount to learn.
	I have a number of questions for the Minister, but I have only 10 seconds left. Will he consider some different ways of taxing—

Simon Hart: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), but I want to go a little further and talk about the Government’s moral and social obligations, aside from their economic ones, in this context.
	I hesitate to mention the big society so early in my speech, but it was invented in rural Britain, and rural Britain is finding it increasingly difficult to deliver and sustain the big society as it falls behind the rest of the country and, indeed, the rest of the world when it comes to broadband and mobile coverage.
	I want to restrict my comments to mobile phone coverage, as far as we can distinguish it from the rest of the debate. We have heard from a number of people how the UK is not where it should be, and from the previous two hon. Members how Wales is not where it could be. It is interesting to hear examples from Norway, France, the United States and recent ones from Port Stanley of people’s ability to communicate with one another by mobile phone, because I in my office in Whitland in Carmarthenshire could not communicate with the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) just up the road, were we to wish to speak and were he to seek my advice on the coalition’s performance, thus denying us both a golden opportunity to advance our careers. There is, however, a serious social and economic problem.
	We have already been told, quite rightly, about the effect on small and medium-sized businesses in rural Britain, but we have not touched on the plight of the elderly in the more lonely parts of our rural communities; on the work of the charities and carers who look after the elderly and vulnerable in those areas, in often hostile geographic and climatic conditions; or on the plight of young people in rural areas, who simply want to be young people in rural areas in a 21st-century context. It is a great source of gloom to me that the babysitting community of Lampeter Velfrey has discovered that there is no mobile phone coverage in the Hart household, the consequence of which is that I do not go out anything like as much as I used to because my babysitters cannot text their friends when they are in my house. If there is a more serious reason for the Minister to address the matter urgently, I am not sure what it is.
	To be serious for a moment, however, I want to focus on the impact of the problem on the police and, in particular, on Dyfed Powys police and the mobile ID
	project known as Lantern, involving the piece of kit they carry around which enables them to take fingerprints while in remote areas, and which relies on the mobile phone network. In our area, the police were subject to two carriers but that was insufficient, so the system did not work as well for our police force as it might have, through no fault of their own. They were able to expand the number of carriers and thus improve the coverage, but unfortunately the Metropolitan police have led a tender process resulting in a UK-wide contract and the tender being awarded to the company that Dyfed Powys rejected on the basis that its system did not work in our area.
	We have to be bit careful about a one-size-fits-all solution based on so-called supreme technological solutions which do not necessarily apply to the wilder and more lonely parts of the country, particularly west Wales. This has an effect on the police’s ability to deliver on its obligations to the community, which is very relevant given the challenges that forces are facing, and that in turn leads to a compromised confidence on the part of the rural community as regards its personal safety and its ability to trust the police to deliver a first-class service, as I know they do.
	I welcome the combination of effort by Ofcom and the Welsh Assembly Government. I think we are now instructed to call them the Welsh Government, but for the purposes of clarity they will remain the Welsh Assembly Government, certainly in my house. There is much to be cheerful about because, as other hon. Members have said, this is a golden opportunity—perhaps the only golden opportunity—for the Government to show their commitment to rural communities: not only their economic but social and moral commitment. We have heard for many years—and we believe it, I would suggest—that this commitment is real. There is no greater opportunity than now for them to cement that commitment and to prove to rural Britain that they believe it is a force for good.

Tessa Munt: I should like to make just a few points and to speak for the Somerset half of that Somerset and Devon bid, which would make such a fantastic difference. Many hon. Members have made points about farmers, young people and old people, but, in my area, many who have retired to Somerset because it is such a beautiful place can stay in their town centre homes and, using broadband, can access facilities and services such as shopping deliveries.
	Rural post offices also benefit from broadband. Businesses use the internet in my towns, and individuals use eBay and Amazon to sell and buy goods. In my post office, there are queues of people who want to send small parcels and envelopes containing things that people have bought, which props up our post office system.
	I thank the Minister for meeting me on Monday to discuss broadband in Somerset. I pointed out to him that I am running, with the Administration Committee, an iPad trial. The iPad is fantastic when I am here in
	London, and completely useless when I am in Somerset, where I cannot access anything because the broadband service is so poor.
	Where it works, broadband is the most fantastic thing. One area of my constituency that has a good service is Burnham and Highbridge. Burnham-on-Sea has a website— burnham-on-sea.com. Some 7,000 or 8,000 people live in Burnham, but that website gets 15,000 unique visitor hits per day, and 50,000 pages are downloaded every day. That rate goes up during the summer tourist season, which is critical, because 26,000 people are employed in tourism in Somerset alone. They depend on people coming to Somerset for their holidays and knowing what they can do and what facilities they can access.
	I thank the Minister for the trouble he has taken to listen to the Somerset and Devon bid, and I hope, as it is bound to do, that it brings success to our counties in business and every other sense, particularly for residents.

Ian Lucas: Absolutely. The Minister is always very polite in his answers to parliamentary questions, but he is also very good at drafting uninformative replies, something that I worked very hard to achieve when I was a Minister. I was not quite as good at it as he is.
	The provision of universal broadband services is also very important to the public sector. Online services are a massive opportunity for government at all levels to provide better services more quickly and more efficiently. However, the Government can move in that direction only if they provide those services to everyone across the country. For example, I understand that the Government intend to move to the compulsory online registration of new companies. As the former responsible Minister, I understand the reasons—costs and efficiency—for this decision, but one can justify such a move only if there is universal broadband provision across the UK. A company with no access to the internet cannot be required by the Government to use it.
	If we are to have universal broadband by 2015, what will it cost? Through parliamentary questions, I have established—I did get some information—that the cost of providing universal fibre-to-the-premises provision would be £29 billion, and that more realistically universal fibre-to-the-cabinet provision would cost £5 billion. We agree that there is a market failure and that the Government have sought to address it by setting aside the £530 million by 2015 mentioned several times today. However, we all accept that this is not enough, so we must look to the private sector for the necessary investment to bridge that investment gap.
	On definitions, the Government are not just committing themselves to universal broadband; they are committing themselves to the best high-speed broadband in Europe by 2015. It will be helpful if the Minister tells us today what speed he regards as high speed for these purposes.
	If we are to work together for the benefit of our constituents to achieve that target, we must know what it means.
	We know that insufficient public money is available to achieve the Government’s goals by 2015, so let us consider the position for private investment. How is that going? Here, I regret to say, there is a problem that was referred to by a couple of Government Members, including the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris). On 1 April the Minister received correspondence—no coincidence perhaps—in which senior executives of leading communications companies, including Fujitsu, Virgin Media, TalkTalk, Geo and Vtesse Networks, wrote that “urgent intervention” was needed to require BT to revise the pricing for the use of its infrastructure. The companies also stated that without such intervention the Broadband Delivery UK process risked a lack of vigorous competition, and as a result would fail to deliver the investment, quality, speed of roll-out, innovation and value for money that the industry was capable of delivering, and which taxpayers deserved. That is a major problem for the necessary private investment.
	The communications network under Labour was extremely competitive. For example, in the past three years, competition has seen the cost of mobile broadband fall from £50 per gigabyte to less than £10 per gigabyte.

Edward Vaizey: If the hon. Lady will wait for one second, I want to use this opportunity—[ Laughter. ] I want to echo my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border—it is quite clear that most hon. Members want to be like him—by thanking my own officials, Mark Swarbrick and Simon Towler, who have done an astonishing amount of work on this issue. Such is their dedication that they even took the photographs for the superfast broadband document that we published in December.
	The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) will be interested to hear that I want to pay tribute not only to the work of Broadband Delivery UK, which was set up by the previous Government and comprises an excellent team of dedicated officials from the private and public sectors, but to the telecoms regulator, Ofcom. I know that we will be discussing the auction in a matter of moments. Ofcom is very ably led by Ed Richards, who also has a fine team. I have embarrassed the hon. Lady on many occasions, but the fact that she could say, “I’m from Ofcom” was a stamp of great quality, and she now brings adornment to the House. Anyway, I seem to have persuaded her not to intervene on me.
	On the 25-megabit target, our target of having the best superfast broadband in Europe is of course dependent on a range of measures, including choice, coverage, speed and take-up. Competition is also very important. It is all very well for an hon. Member to mention that Uzbekistan has better coverage than the UK—that sounds like a bit of a slight to Uzbekistan, although I am sure that that was unintended—but it is worth remembering that Uzbekistan has a population of 5 million people, and effectively one mobile broadband provider. If we want to encourage competition, which will encourage choice, innovation and low cost, we will also have to acknowledge that the Government cannot direct and demand how broadband is rolled out.
	The hon. Member for Wrexham pointed out that we expect two thirds of the country to be covered by private sector investment, with BT and Virgin clearly in the lead, along with some small network operators. As so many hon. Members were keen to praise far-flung places all over the world for their broadband, let me be the champion of British business and British broadband providers. Every three months, BT puts down a fibre network equivalent to that of Singapore. BT, a British company, is rolling out broadband at twice the pace of Deutsche Telekom, twice the pace of AT&T and twice the pace of Verizon. That is something that we should be very proud of. BT recently announced that it expects to offer an 80 megabit service next year, while Virgin already offers a 100 megabit service. I do not want to sound too patriotic because we also welcome the intervention of Fujitsu, which has plans to bring fibre connections to 5 million rural homes.
	The key to this debate is supporting those areas where the market will not deliver. We have already announced four pilot areas, including the one represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border—it was more than life was worth not to have his constituency as one of the pilot areas, although it was, of course, I emphasise, an independent decision—along with North Yorkshire, Herefordshire and the highlands and islands. [Interruption.] Well, we all know about the discussion of Herefordshire and Wales that took place in the House a few months ago.
	We will announce the next wave of pilots next week. As the hon. Member for Wrexham pointed out, this is indeed where government gets difficult, because we will have to say no to a few. Let me offer a crumb of comfort to those who may get bad news next week. From now on, we shall be working on a first-come, first-served basis. We will not announce a third and fourth wave; any local authority whose bid is not accepted can sit down with Broadband Delivery UK, work through the bid to find out where the gaps are and then come forward again when it is ready. It will be a rolling process. We also recently announced the creation of a rural community broadband fund, which is expected to be worth up to an additional £20 million—above and beyond the £530 million we have made available.
	I am conscious of time and I am anxious to talk about mobile voice and mobile broadband. I understand the issue. In rural Oxfordshire, in the village close to Wantage where I live, I have to stand in the middle of the road to get mobile coverage. When I was candidate before the 2005 election, simply getting my constituents connected to the internet was a high priority for me. I pay tribute to the work of community broadband groups, which many hon. Members have mentioned, as their ability to galvanise enthusiasm and put forward solutions is important, encouraging other operators to take an interest and see that provision of rural broadband can be profitable.
	Broadband Delivery UK is taking a technologically neutral approach to solutions; mobile broadband is a potential solution for hard-to-reach areas. We want to see partnerships between fixed, mobile, wireless and satellite operators to compete for the available funds. I emphasise that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. A couple of my hon. Friends mentioned the benefits of satellite technology. I am lucky enough to have the National Space Centre in my constituency, so I would be more than happy to see a satellite solution. We have
	to be realistic, however, about what satellites can deliver. They will be a complementary technology, but they certainly do not provide a one-size-fits-all solution.
	The key issue—and, I think, the key reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border called this debate—is the auction that is about to take place for the 800 MHz and 2.6 GHz spectrum, and the coverage obligations put forward in Ofcom’s initial outline of how the auction will take place. I remind hon. Members that this is being consulted on; it is not fixed in stone. This debate will be important not just for the Treasury to watch, but for Ofcom, which will give serious consideration to any representations, along with appropriate evidence, on whether to increase the coverage obligation attached to the 800 MHz licence. It is important that robust evidence is made available.
	Let me make it absolutely clear to hon. Members that the auctioning of spectrum is not a money-raising exercise. In fact, under European rules, it is not appropriate to auction spectrum simply to raise the maximum revenue possible. Ofcom has to take into account a whole range of different factors, including the investment capacity of operators. It must also undertake a cost-benefit analysis of whether the coverage obligations are inappropriately expensive.
	It is important that Ofcom’s consultation is seen to be open, transparent and robust. One thing that I have learned in government is that the constituency of mobile and telecoms operators with which I deal comprises not only with some of the most fantastic British companies, but some of the most litigious. If my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border could have done any additional work in marshalling his forces for this evening’s debate, it would have involved conveying to the chief executive of each company, in no uncertain terms, his and his colleagues’ view that we must get on with the auction, and that any attempt to disrupt it through litigation could set back the auction and therefore the roll-out of spectrum.
	I have deliberately avoided being partisan in my speech, but I must express disappointment about the interventionist approach that I consider the last Government to have taken in regard to the spectrum auction. I believe that if they had simply left it to Ofcom, we would have reached the end of the process before the present Government had even come to office.
	We should bear in mind the changes that are taking place in the UK mobile market and in technology. I had the privilege of visiting Alcatel-Lucent recently to observe the technology that it is developing in Swindon. It is good to see inward investment taking place there. Technologies such as femtocells—which, essentially, provide small base stations in the home or office—will radically improve indoor coverage, and will give users better coverage.
	The hon. Member for Wrexham made a valid point in his critique of the Government’s policy in regard to local authority bids. I think that local authorities are best placed to lead the bids, but it is important to remember that Broadband Delivery UK sits behind the bidding process,. It is able to advise local authorities on procurement, and assesses bids partly on the basis of the capacity of a local authority to deliver in terms of its personnel and expertise. The more such bids are made and the more individual local authorities engage in procurement exercises, the more other local authorities will have an opportunity to learn from the process.
	Let me end by reminding the House that Rome was not built in a day. We must bear in mind the capacity of the private operators and companies that will deliver superfast broadband. I believe that we have adequate sums to support it, but I take the concerns expressed by Members on both sides of the House very seriously. We are working as hard as we can, given the constraints within in which we operate, to deliver good superfast broadband to as many people as possible by 2015.

Rory Stewart: I thank all Members who took part in the debate. It is extraordinary that on a Thursday afternoon 20 Members should speak on a motion tabled by 100. I also echo the thanks expressed to Louis Mosley.
	The fibre issue remains central to the debate, and I am sorry that I did not say more about it. The connection of fibre through backhaul to mobile telephone masts needs to be addressed. However, it on mobile broadband that we should really be focusing because of the consultation this evening.
	Extraordinary changes have been made. By 2015, 7.1 billion people will have mobile telephones. That is more than the current population of the world. Whatever we do, whether it involves £215 million, 1,500 masts or a 98% coverage obligation, let us use the debate to pass the message to Ofcom that it must extend the coverage obligation.
	Resolved,
	That this House recognises that rural businesses and rural communities across the UK are isolated and undermined by slow broadband and the lack of mobile voice and mobile broadband coverage; urges Ofcom to increase the coverage obligation attached to the 800MHz spectrum licence to 98 per cent.; and calls upon the Government to fulfil its commitment to build both the best superfast broadband network in Europe and provide everyone in the UK with a minimum of 2 Mbps by 2015.